Where is your evidence creationists?

[Split Rock]

No we believe we have enough proof to believe. We are not idiots. I have asked and asked those who think they are scientists in this discussion to address the first cause...and how evolution got started. THEY CAN'T. WICCAN said as much. She simply can't, and no one else in the world can either. You people are the ones who believe that something came from NOTHING.

TAKE A STAB AT IT.......you tell me what that first cause was.

Biological evolution started with the first imperfect replicator. I'm not really interested in discussing first causes as far as where the universe came from. However, all you're doing is pushing first cause back to your god. Where did he come form then?

So what is happening here is that I list frauds.....in the evolutionary world and you quickly change the subject....address the frauds and quit running.

Go Back and Read my Post. I addressed your fraud list!

Well one thing leads to another....and I find it all interesting. What I can't read about entropy? LOL

From what I have read...entropy shoots evolution dead in the water.

"The universe is dying from heat loss but according to entropy or the second law of thermodynamics everything runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay. Evolution directly contradicts this law....in that.. it describes a universe in which things run from utter chaos to complexity and
order. In evolution atoms allegedly self-produce amino acids, amino acids auto-organize amoebas, amoebas turn into apes and apes evolve into astronauts." The Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff page 85.

The conditions that hold true in the universe today prevent any possiblity of matter springing out of nothing....so the universe could not have eternally existed. This hypothesis is killed by the law of entropy...which predicts that a universe that has eternally existed would have died out billions of years ago...by heat loss.

So when you say this has nothing to do with evolution and the whole scheme of things...you are wrong. It just tossed out one theory that evolutionists have about the possiblities of how everything came to be.

I couldn't care less what your Fundie Professioanl liar source, Hank Hanegraaff says in his book. Show me how biological evolution violates any laws of entropy. Tell me specifically what mechanism of evolution violates laws of entropy and why.

Just a question for ya. Do you think there are any creation scientists on earth? Are they out to lunch too? I think that you so hate the idea of God that you will believe anything and I mean anything......like something came from nothing.

"Creation scientists" are pretty much out to lunch, yes. They are the modern equivalent of the old snake oil sales men of the past. And you believe your god came from nothing.

 

[CabVet]

Creation scientists

I disagree with you, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist"

 

[Incariol]

Creation scienctists.

I'm with CabVet. Sorry, but they don't exist, so they can't be "out to lunch".

 

[Split Rock]

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."-*Arthur N. Field.

....

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."-*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

Oh Goody!!!!!!!!!! A Quote Mine List!!!!!!!!! This gives me an opportunity to re-post my very own Creation Science Quote Mine List!!!!!!!!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

 

[Split Rock]

I disagree with you, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist"

I'm with CabVet. Sorry, but they don't exist, so they can't be "out to lunch".

Thanks guys, I went back and corrected this (and my misspelling LOL).

 

[USincognito]

Suddenly meaning abruptly. A span of 70 million years out of 3.8 billion years of life is relatively abrupt. Even within one million years of multi-cellular life, Of course, as a matter of perception, that 70 million year span can be seen as the length of time of the effects of the sudden onset of body plans which have survived selective pressures since.

You realize that every mammal and bird you're familiar with has evolved (and many of them gone extinct) during the last 70 million years. From hippos to humans to hawks. From whales to bats to penguins.

 

[USincognito]

For the egg and the eye two complexed things came into being by blind chance....is just impossible, its laughable.

Do you think the, say, human eye and chicken egg suddenly appeared without precoursers?

...entropy (which I am just reading a bit now) back up the creation model for origins...they simply IMO from what I have read undermine the evolutionary model.

Then you must be reading Creationist straw man versions of entropy and 2LoT.

They describe in detail how the eye works. And how the entire bodys organisms work around the eye. Absolutely fascinating. I am not a doctor so it is difficult to understand. Darwin had this to say about the eye.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

So blind random chance......don't think so. This was and is a dilemma for people who reject God and creation. To think that the eye...evolved by chance impossible...and to surmise that the eye could have evolved at the same time other complexed functions were perfectly evolving....is well.......come on. Everything working together perfectly............don't believe it.

You do know that Darwin quote is a quote mine, right? Because right after that he goes on to explain how the eye could evolve. And we've certainly learned a lot more about eyes and how they evolved in the intervening 150 years. I ask again, do you think that, say, a human eye suddenly poofed into being without evolutionary precoursers?

Haeckel is on example....as his drawing he knew were fraudulent. Today I think they are still in science books.

With only a handful of possible exceptions by lazy editors trying to avoid using more expensive and copywritten drawings or photographs, no they are not. The drawings most of us remember from Biology class weren't Haeckel's drawings. And in those instances cited by Creationists - Disco has a page with scans - you can see the drawings are being used in a historical context, not an evidentiary one.

I think while Darwin was a racist and sexist man...

He wasn't any more so than any other Englishman living in the mid-19th Century and he turned out to be a heck of a lot less racist than American Southern Baptists in the same time period.

This going on when the eye and the egg and our organs were miraculously forming? Blind chance? No way.

So now you're claiming that our organs poofed into existance without evolutionary precoursers? I want you to read this Wikipedia entry and get back to us after doing so.
Deuterostome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Our perfect distance from the sun...not seen on anyother planet. If we were any closer to the Sun we would fry. If we were any further away we would freeze. If the moon was smaller tidal motion would cease and the oceans would stagnate and die. Then there are the ocean tides that play a crucial role in our survival."

Hey look! That puddle fills the hole it's in perfectly!

Basically Huse says that "any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible.

He would be wrong depending on how he defines appreciable. The rotation of the earth was significantly faster for quite a period while there was life on earth. Fossil corals show a day length of about 22 1/2 hours.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Lie by an unknown "scientist".



Quote from the 1890's.



Might have been true in 1933.



Of course it is inadequate, it was formulated to explain diversification of species, not inorganic matter.



A quote by a physicist taken out of context.



Out of context. Quote from 1956 criticizing HOW Darwin proposed evolution (without any knowledge about heredity or genetics). Thompson FULLY accepts evolution.



Although Denton challenged neo-Darwinism with his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many of Denton's views have since diverged outside of the Intelligent Design movement, Denton still accepts design but embraces a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory. He denies that randomness accounts for the biology of organisms, he has proposed an evolutionary theory which is a “directed evolution” in his book Natures Destiny (1998).



Again out of context.



This quote supports evolution



His personal conflicts. Nothing against evolution there.



His opinion.



Darwin "quoted" in a creation book? Really? Even if the quote was true, there are hundreds of transitional fossils today.




Unpublished "quote" with no substantiation.



Unbelievably out of context. Peters was criticizing how the theory of evolution should not be summarized with sentences like "survival of the fittest" simply because this is not testable (i.e.: everyone that survives must be fit). He was arguing for better descriptions, but he never questioned evolution itself.

Oh, and please refrain from copying and pasting from creationist websites, anybody can do this. Just post the links if they are so important to you.

So we can't quote any scientist past what year? LOL
All these scientists had it wrong? LOL
And all you here....know more about the physical universe and what science has to say about this?

Not one of the scientists and physicists comments I posted were accurate?

This goes to show the narrowmindedness of the group here. You absolutely discount everything...and goes to show that it does not really matter to you.....the truth is I mean.

The fact is...........no one here....no one anywhere...can PROVE WHAT THAT FIRST CAUSE WAS. You think you have all the facts....but you don't. To say that all these scientists got it wrong because their observations were said to long ago....is absolutely ridiculous. How long ago did Darwin live.......and you wouldn't hesitate to quote him. He was born in 1809 and died 1882. Should all his comment be thrown out?
Talk about closed minds.............

Nothing I posted was false from any of these scientists. I can't post the entire chapters from which they are taken...no more than any of you have read every book they have written to know they were taken out of context and false as they appear. The quotes speak for themselves and address the issues we are talking about. I posted them to show that in the time Darwin lived....there were men of science who disagreed. Many of those men are still living so they all are not ancient. You say they are taken from biased sites. Well do you think these comments would appear as fact on some evolutionary site? Do you think that they would openly report other theories in good faith? No

You blindly believe in evolution because you read it in some book and because some textbooks call it fact. That is enough for you. And as I said if you think every scientist on earth thinks it fact you are wrong.


I do not and will never believe that something can come from NOTHING. We do not know what that first cause was......and those who reject god...look at this issue appart from science just like Huxley does. They do not want some god telling them what is right and what is wrong...who controls their lives.

Sir Julian Huxley was asked why people fall for the THEORY of evolution.
"It is because the concept of a Creator God interferes with our sexual mores. They we have rationalized God out of existence, To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice the Wonderland."

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/FONT]

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Do you think the, say, human eye and chicken egg suddenly appeared without precoursers?



Then you must be reading Creationist straw man versions of entropy and 2LoT.



You do know that Darwin quote is a quote mine, right? Because right after that he goes on to explain how the eye could evolve. And we've certainly learned a lot more about eyes and how they evolved in the intervening 150 years. I ask again, do you think that, say, a human eye suddenly poofed into being without evolutionary precoursers?



With only a handful of possible exceptions by lazy editors trying to avoid using more expensive and copywritten drawings or photographs, no they are not. The drawings most of us remember from Biology class weren't Haeckel's drawings. And in those instances cited by Creationists - Disco has a page with scans - you can see the drawings are being used in a historical context, not an evidentiary one.



He wasn't any more so than any other Englishman living in the mid-19th Century and he turned out to be a heck of a lot less racist than American Southern Baptists in the same time period.



So now you're claiming that our organs poofed into existance without evolutionary precoursers? I want you to read this Wikipedia entry and get back to us after doing so.
Deuterostome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hey look! That puddle fills the hole it's in perfectly!



He would be wrong depending on how he defines appreciable. The rotation of the earth was significantly faster for quite a period while there was life on earth. Fossil corals show a day length of about 22 1/2 hours.

So are you saying that all men back in that day were racist? Sexist?

Wow. That encompasses a lot of people.

The things that Darwin said would happen did not happen. He said them in a scientific context...that the black man was inferior that the black race WOULD DIE OUT because of survival of the fittest. This was a scientific observation...one that would affect many people who were living at the time...Hitler, Sanger. They took his observations and theories and ran with them. You can not blame the culture on his work. And if you do then you discredit him the scientist that he was. The fact is he was a scientist who wrote books on this. He was a racist and he got it wrong. The black race is not dying out is it?

Is the black race inferior...has it started to die out?

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Oh Goody!!!!!!!!!! A Quote Mine List!!!!!!!!! This gives me an opportunity to re-post my very own Creation Science Quote Mine List!!!!!!!!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

Now all these were taken out of context you do realize this. So your list....isn't a go........sorry. LOL

Works both ways doesn't it.........

 

[mdancin4theLord]

What was the first cause?

What started evolution?

Forget everything else........and tell me about the very first cause.

 

[AV1611VET]

Works both ways doesn't it.........

As Proverbs says, answer an atheist accordingly, or he will think he's getting away with his own philosophy:*

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

* Evolution, in this case.

 

[RickG]

What was the first cause?

What started evolution?

Forget everything else........and tell me about the very first cause.

You appear to be assuming that life begin with a single organism only once and only in one environment.

 

[USincognito]

What was the first cause?

What started evolution?

Forget everything else........and tell me about the very first cause.

Uh Oh. Looks like someone is in over her head.

Regurgitating stuff from Creationist sites - rebuked and rebutted.
Wild, baseless claims about science - rebuked and rebutted.
Wall of text quote mines - rebuked and rebutted.
Fall back on metaphysics and God of the Gaps - see below.


Alright dancer. God was the first cause of the universe 13 billion years ago setting things in motion that led to neucleosynthesis and the earliest stars. Some of them went supernova creating heavy elements and spreading them amongst the cosmos. Some of the primordial hydrogen and heavier elements coalesced into a disk about 5 billion years ago leading to the birth of the sun and eventually the earth. About 3.5 billion years ago the first life appeared on earth and it has been evolving ever since.

Now what? You want to discuss the evolution that has occured over the last 3.5 billion years or do you want to appeal to the God of the Gaps and stick with abiogenesis and the Big Bang. If the latter, you're not arguing against science, evolution, "Darwinism" or anything else. You're merely arguing against atheism and need to stick to philiosophy and metaphysics rather than jump into the scientific debate.

 

[ianb321red]

Besides my position is the correct position. I don't believe something until their is evidence for it.

And the evidence being legitimate is determined by who?
By you or by someone else?
If it's determined by you then this is just relativism
If it's by determined someone else then your acceptance of evidence is faith based

 

[USincognito]

Secondary evidence
There are well over 50 separate pagan, Jewish and secular sources such as the accounts of historians Falvius Josephus, Tacitus, The Talmud, Fronto, Suetonius and so on with independently corroborate the historical accuracy of The Bible.

Uh Oh. Someones been taken in by Josh McDowell and/or other apologists. You might want to check out some of the real scholarship on the names you have cited and how accurately the "independantly corroborate the historical accuracy of the {Gospels}.

 

[ianb321red]

opinions are not evidence. try again.

Fallacious. Witnesses give "opinions" under oath in courts of law. These count as evidence. Try again.

Yes but you did go into any more details then "it stands up to historical testing" sorry but that is a claim not evidence.

It does when we contrast it about anything else we know about the ancient world.

Its false until you can provide evidence. that is the way it works buddy. If you don't like it find some evidence.

The evidence is out there for anyone with a brain and pair of eyes that work to understand.

I've previously spelt out the Christian position to CabVet in an earlier post #389 (no answer as yet).
http://www.christianforums.com/t7614622-39/#post59475637

You need to re-write history mate if you want to discredit the Christian/ Theistic position.

 

[ianb321red]

Uh Oh. Someones been taken in by Josh McDowell and/or other apologists. You might want to check out some of the real scholarship on the names you have cited and how accurately the "independantly corroborate the historical accuracy of the {Gospels}.

Not Josh McDowell I'm afraid. I actually agree that some of the Christian apologists are a bit ropey on some of these things

I tend to rely on non-Christian scholars to ensure impartiality on these things

I'm all ears for the counter evidence btw..

 

[USincognito]

What is more bizarre than thinking that something came from nothing? Come on........The complex systems of our bodies...of the solar system...all in perfect fitting order...by chance.

Of course a straw man seems bizarre. You're so all over the place it's often hard to get, specifically, what you're talking about, but you I'm guessing you don't realize that:
- The Big Bang Theory doesn't say "something came from nothing" as it postulates the universe being compressed into a singularity which contained something, not nothing.
- That astrophysics doesn't say "something came from nothing" since the universe had been around for about 10 billion years and a lot of something had been going on including neucleosynthesis all that time.
- That abiogenesis doesn't say "something from nothing" since it notes that very common chemicals in the makeup of the earth (and, at it turns out, solar system) are those that make up the building blocks of life
- That our bodies are "something from nothing" because the evolutinary route taken to humans - and every other being on earth extant or extinct - is understood.

If one thinks the human digestive system suddenly poofed into existance at some unknown point, of course it would seem bizarre. Of course it's not based on reality since we know that human digestive systems are merely modified Deuterostome digestive systems that have been around for 500+ million years.

 

[USincognito]

Not Josh McDowell I'm afraid. I actually agree that some of the Christian apologists are a bit ropey on some of these things

I tend to rely on non-Christian scholars to ensure impartiality on these things

I'm all ears for the counter evidence btw..

Non-Christian scholars like whom?

As far as counter evidence goes. How about you first cite the source of your "50 sources" claim and that will give me something to work with?

I will give you two things to work with. The Testamonium Flavium is considered by virtually everyone but apologists to be a forgery. And why, because the Talmud is central to Judaic orthodoxy - meaning the rejection of Jesus as Messiah - would it include inforation affirming Jesus as Messiah?